Prêchi-prêcha

The best part of this movie is the performance by Jack Lemmon as Father Farley, the aging and very comfortable (indeed, far too comfortable) priest of a Roman Catholic parish. Farley is loved by his people - and he loves being loved. He loves the people in return, but more than that - he needs the people; he needs the sense of belonging that he gains from them; the sense of identity he gets from them. He can't bear the thought of losing them, which ironically makes him less effective as their priest. He has a friendly but sometimes strained relationship with the local monsignor (played by Charles Durning) - a relationship pushed to the breaking point when the monsignor assigns a young seminarian, Mark Dolson (Zeljko Ivanec) to Farley's parish as a deacon. The monsignor doesn't like Dolson. He's under suspicion for his too quick defence of two fellow seminarians expelled because it was believed that they were gay. After defending Dolson, Farley is given the responsibility of turning Dolson into a "real" candidate for the priesthood in a month.

I think people misunderstand this movie. It's easy to think that this is about the struggles of being gay and a priest in the Catholic Church. But that's not what this is about at all - at least not to me. This was really about Farley, and his struggles with his own identity - not sexual, but his waning sense of vocation and his desire just to keep people happy and not make waves. His priesthood is being lived out in a cloak of fear that something might go wrong; that his parish might get upset with him; that the monsignor might transfer him. He lacks joy, purpose and fulfilment in his vocation. Lemmon captured that. In a neat trick of camera-work, there was a wonderful shot of Father Farley in the pulpit, in full clerical dress, standing before his congregation - and he looked so small, so vulnerable and even so unimportant. That's what Farley had become.

This was the point of the movie - not Dolson. Dolson pushed Farley. In a strange sort of way, even though he was a pain in Farley's neck, he encouraged Farley; he ultimately enlivened Farley and helped Farley regain that sense of purpose in his vocation as he finally works up the courage to take on the monsignor and make himself vulnerable to his parish by appealing to them to support Dolson. I thought this was very well done.

Durning as the monsignor was also significant. His character pointed out every well the problems of an overly hierarchical and authoritarian ecclesiastical structure. Decisions could get made and people's entire vocations and futures decided at his whim, without any evidence to back up his suspicions. The monsignor was a threatening character; a very dark character which Durning pulled off well.

Keep in mind that this movie is almost 30 years old. It doesn't address any of the current scandals in the Roman Catholic Church because they just weren't out there publicly in 1984. It deals with one priest's failing calling, and one seminarian's attempt to determine if he has a calling. Basically, this was extremely well done on everyone's part. It's one of the better "church" movies I've ever seen. 8/10

I consider this film to be a real little gem -- unlike the original Broadway production. Its premises ring true and the ensemble acting is superb. Lemmon and Ivanek are extremely well matched as lost or submerged parts of the other in this cautionary tale about mainstream religion straining at the limits of its ability to accommodate and hold accountable truths found in the "wider" world. Lemmon's performance, especially, is artless and memorable, avoiding sentimentality and undue predictability. It is most unfortunate that in the days after Lemmon's death that no reviewer of his oeurve decided to cite this film or show clips from it in describing the actor's versatility and "every-manness." It should not be missed; so compelling is the uneasy and finally transformative relationship between the two men that one is left wondering what happens to both priest and seminarian in the years that follow. Rent this of a Sunday afternoon when you're longing to experience some rising spirit.

Father Farley drinks a little. He also goes to the races, is bad with first names, and tells "little lies" to get him out of tricky situations, like those involving domestic quarrels and slideshows with Monsignor Burke. But his parish loves him. Then he is assigned to look after a passionate young deacon who challenges him to step out of his blissful rut.

Jack Lemmon gives a very lived-in, often moving performance as Father Farley, and the best moments of "Mass Appeal" give us a chance to see Lemmon in his seriocomic element. But the film as a whole feels less smooth. Though it raises questions about saying what one believes versus being popular, "Mass Appeal" struggles to find a balance of its own, whether it wants to be a Neil Simon-style light comedy or a searing examination of the Catholic Church today.

Still, "Mass Appeal" is more good than not. It deals knowingly with the concepts of Catholicism, and hones in on the charms and pitfalls of the parochial life with small-bore detail. "Did I tell you about the coughs?" Father Farley tells the deacon, Mark Dolson (Zeljko Ivanek), cluing him in on one of the telltale signs a sermon-giver is losing his congregation. When giving a sermon, never say "you," always say "we." Less confrontational that way.

The problem is that Dolson is all about confrontation. He already has Monsignor Burke (Charles Durning) fuming about being called a "homophobic autocrat" for kicking out a pair of seminarians suspected of sleeping together. Dolson speaks in favor of the ordination of women, tells Farley he'd be a better priest if he drank less, and calls out the congregation during one sermon for their mink hats and blue hair.

Farley squirms from his seat behind the altar while his acolyte implodes in the pulpit, ignoring his hacking throng. "We'll be going out the back today," he mutters to an altar boy in a classic Lemmon aside.

My main problem with "Mass Appeal," as noted by other posters, was that I was never sold on Dolson's reason for becoming a priest. He seems more like a mouthpiece for Bill C. Davis, adapting his Broadway play, to vocalize his concerns about the church's position on wedge issues like celibate gays in the clergy. Ivanek plays him as a character who acts more from anger than conviction, which seems a wrong choice. You don't have to be an autocratic homophobe to think this guy, celibate or not, will have problems with his priestly office somewhere down the road.

There's a frostiness to Ivanek's scenes with Lemmon that's off-putting, and the sentiment squeezed out of them sometimes feels stagey and forced. Director Glenn Jordan worked mostly in TV movies, and while he frames his scenes well and builds a good pace, there's often a pedestrian quality to the overall presentation. You can't stick in a car chase with a film like this, but there are too many talking-head shots.

The best parts of the movie are Lemmon's scenes with Monsignor Burke, which Durning invests with his typical mix of menace and affability. Not just a heavy, Durning plays him as a bit lost. Burke really likes Farley but alienates him at the same time with his bullying, as subservience is the only kind of devotion this sacerdotal relic understands. When Dolson calls him out on his harshness, Burke targets him for his frankness and justifies his vendetta as churchly devotion.

One wishes Davis made Burke more than the bad guy, perhaps found a way to make him a more active player in the spiritual journeys of Farley and Dolson, journeys left largely unexplored here. Instead he's made the object of anger for the other characters, and even has a wormy henchman on call. Didn't Burke have his days as a lost seminarian, too?

"Mass Appeal" gets by with its light charm, its probing and atypical focus on the Catholic faith in practice, and most especially Lemmon's strong central performance. Even if you don't like Lemmon in every film of his you see, it's safe to say you will like him here. Sometimes it takes a lesser film to display a great actor, and that's what you get here.

Mark Dolson (Zeljko Ivanek) wants to be a priest because, as a child, someone boiled his goldfish. The alternate version is as uninspired - because he does not find fulfillment in intimate relationships with either sex, he is qualified for the priesthood. At any rate, he says that he wants `to help people.' A bit of a loose cannon, Dolson is sent by the Monsignor to serve as deacon for the now jaded Father Farley (Jack Lemmon).

What ever his faults may be, Dolson is impassioned. He wants to make a difference. The problem is that it is unclear as to whether the priesthood is the place for him to do it. As a vehicle for exploring the question of gays (or women for that matter) in the Roman Catholic priesthood, Mass Appeal is lacking because of this lack of clarity.

His lack of a clear `call' is foregrounded by his lackluster attempts at sermons. All Mark knows is that he wants to move people. He is uncertain about where his congregation is, or where he wants to move them. Farley steps in to suggest that he go for beloved. Hence the play on words in the title. Farley wants Mark to gain Mass Appeal by making the Mass appealing: if someone finds God in the process, hey that's ok too. Dolson will have none of this and founders.

Farley's appeal is that he knows the system. One gets the impression that he wants someone to rock the boat. Of course the irony of the situation is that in order to shake up the system, one must first join it.

Does this film have a meaning or a message? Well yeah, it does. But that is something for each viewer to figure out for him or herself. It won't make you hate or love the church (any church – this one just happens to be Roman Catholic). Did I like the film? Yes. Is it my favorite? No – not even close. It is a study of idiosyncrasies and harmless little lies (`I didn't know there was such a thing,' says Dolan). Jack Lemmon is in it for goodness sake, what else could you want?

"Mass Appeal" is enjoyable on several levels. It works as an examination of the depth of contemporary religious beliefs and their current role in our society, as an indictment of an inflexible system (the Catholic church), and as a comment on the travails of two very different men (ostensibly of the same "cloth") seeking spiritual happiness. Unfortunately, as a "mass appeal" film, not all of the issues are satisfactorily handled, but the film is entertaining nonetheless. Greg Cundiff's excellent review neatly summarizes some key plot issues and holes. For example, I found Ivanek's/Dolson's devotion and desire compelling, but what on earth would make him think that a parish of strangers would listen to his excoriations and then embrace him as their pastor? I agree with Cundiff that the lack of clarity surrounding this fundamental plot point does not help the film. I was also disappointed that Durning's character was unambiguously drawn as the heavy. A more balanced approach may have helped here. Farley's attempt at leading a discussion of the role of women priests is unusually framed, but ultimately leaves the viewer desiring a more compelling resolution to the issue.

Strongly on the plus side, Lemmon is an excellent choice for the lead (whi ch allows him to display his comic and dramatic talents equally). Farley's story is as compelling as Dolson's, and Lemmon squeezes every drop of drama from the script. His final "mass appeal" is quite affecting. Ivanek is intense as Dolson, but Charles Durning's role could be played by anyone. The film is nicely "shot" and has an exhilarating soundtrack at points.

A "7" out of "10."